On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 04:38:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:19:53PM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> > I think what you are saying is that describing a generic connector via
> > devicetree is not acceptable, even though it _does_ describe hardware.
> > I would have to describe a specific connector for a specific hardware
> > instead, which in turn would need its own driver. Is that correct ?

> Regardless of how the connector is described, the block of hardware it
> connects to will have to be described, and some description of the
> connector will be necessary (either in the node for the block, or by
> phandle to a node for the connector). I agree that having a combined IP
> block + connector driver for each permutation is not good.

Many of the things described only have passive components attached, or
things that otherwise don't need drivers - things like power inputs or
headphone connectors, they're mainly providing information to allow
userspace to behave differently (eg, display a charging indicator in the
UI).  It's not 100% true but by and by large if detection is being done
using a GPIO it's probably something like that.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]